DEA Religious Exemption Process

Here is another DEA Petition where they argued for Medical. I have not seen one actual Religious Petition to the DEA, everyone has asked for Medical Exemption.

OLSEN v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMIN| D.C. Cir. | Law | CaseMine

And I just want to point out. All these people get Rejected by the DEA or the Federal Court, and that's it, they give up.

I don't care if any of these County, or State or Federal Agencies reject me. I hope they reject me. I want to go to international court, and set Precedent in Multiple nations. My argument is not just under the Constitution. My argument comes from the UN Psychotropics Convention
 
I have submitted a Petition to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission to get a Human Rights Case opened against the United States for "Witch Hunting". US Law Enforcement Generally sees themselves as "Righteous" and "The Good Guys" and fighting against "Evil" in a Spiritual War. Then on top of that there is a "Drug War", in which the Military has been licensed to get involved. So Religious Persecution by a Self-Righteous Law Enforcement Body, under Color of Law. Usually under Color of Drug Law. And I have provided evidence of various Religions which have been persecuted, those which use substances and those who do not. As well as various other Evidences, and my Court Cases and DEA Petition and everything.

So, there should be a Human Rights case on this subject coming soon, and it has been a long time coming. In some Cases, American Law Enforcement is no less the Christian Police than ISIS is the Muslim Police.
 
If anyone wants to help get Hindu Shaivite and West Indie Religious and Cultural Marijuana use recognized under International Human Rights (it has gotten to the point where people are scared to even convert to Religions they identify with), contact this email (the Inter American Human Rights Commission)
cidhoea@oas.org

And tell them to Call the White House because it is urgent, and send them these numbers for the White House Situation Room
202-456-9451, 202-456-9453, or 202-456-9431
 
Thomas Jefferson

"These Resolutions were undoubtedly drafted prior to 19 Nov., for on that date the House adopted the following:

Resolved,… that all and every act or statute, either of the parliament of England or of Great Britain, by whatever title known or distinguished, which renders criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever, or which prescribes punishments for the same, ought to be declared henceforth of no validity or force within this Commonwealth.

Resolved,That so much of an act of Assembly made in the 4th year of the reign of queen Anne, intituled An act for the effectual suppression of vice, and restraint and punishment of blasphemous, wicked, and dissolute persons, as inflicts certain additional penalties on any person or persons convicted a second time of any of the offences described in the first clause of the said act, ought to be repealed.

Resolved, That so much of the petitions of the several dissenters from the Church established by law within this Commonwealth, as desires an exemption from all taxes and contributions whatever towards supporting the said church and the ministers thereof, or towards the support of their respective religious societies in any other way than themselves shall voluntarily agree, is reasonable.

Resolved, That the several acts of Assembly, making provision for the support of the clergy, ought to be repealed, securing to the present incumbents all arrears of salary, and to the vestries a power of levying for performance of their contracts.

Resolved, That a reservation ought to be made to the use of the said church, in all time coming, of the tracts of glebe lands already purchased, the churches and chapels already built for the use of the several parishes, and of all plate belonging to or appropriated to the use of the said church, and all arrears of money or tobacco arising from former assessments; and that there should be reserved to such parishes as have received private donations, for the support of the said church and its ministers, the perpetual benefit of such donations”
 
Thomas Jefferson

“Commonwealth is ‘a society of men constituted for preserving their civil <rights> interests.’ interests are ‘life, health, indolency of body, liberty, property.’ the magistrate’s jurisdn. extends only to civil rights and from these considns.: the magistrate has no power but wt. ye. people gave hm. the people hv. nt. givn. hm. <powr.> the care of souls bec. y cd. nt., y. cd. nt. because no man hs. right to abandon ye. care of his salvation to another. no man has power to let another prescribe his faith. faith is not faith witht. believing. no man can conform his faith to the dictates of another. the life & essence of religion consists in the internal persuasion or belief of the mind.”

“[a church] is ‘a voluntary society of men, joining [themselves] together of their own accord, in order to the [publick] worshipping of god in such a manner as they judge [accept]able to him & effectual to the salvation of their souls. [it is] voluntary because no man is by nature bound to any church. the hopes of salvation is the cause of his entering into it. if he find any thing wrong in it, he [sh]ould be as free to go out as he was to come in.

[w]hat is the power of that church &c.? as it is a society <of voluntary> it must have some laws for it’s regulation. time & place of meeting, admitting & excluding members &c. must be regulated.

but as it was a spontaneous joining of members, it follows that it’s laws extend to it’s own members only, not to those of any other voluntary society: for then by the same rule some other voluntary society might usurp power <of> over them.

suppose for instance two churches one of Arminians another of <Lutherans> Calvinists in Constantinople. has either any right over the other? will it be said the orthodox one has? every church is to itself orthodox, to others erroneous or heretical. I cannot give up my guidance to the magistrate; because he knows no more of the way to heaven than I do.

[co]mpulsion in religion is distinguished peculiarly from compulsion in every other thing. I may grow rich by art I am compelled to follow, I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take agt. my own judgmt., but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve & abhor.

[he] sais ‘neither Pagan nor Mahamedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.’ shall we suffer a Pagan to deal with us and not suffer him to pray to his god?

as the antients tolerated visionaries & enthusiasts of all kinds so they permitted a free scope to philosophy as a balance. as the Pythagoreans & latter Platonicks joined with the superstition of the times the Epicureans & Academicks were allowed all the use of wit & raillery against it. thus matters were balanced; reason had [full] play & science flourished. these contrarieties produced harmony. superstition & enthusiasm thus let alone never raged to bloodshed persecution &c.”
 
The Federalist Paper No. 10

“It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.”

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

“and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”

“A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. “
 
"If Caesar had been as virtuous as he was daring and sagacious, what could he, even in the plenitude of his usurped power, have done to lead his fellow citizens into good government?... If their people indeed had been, like ourselves, enlightened, peaceable, and really free, the answer would be obvious. 'Restore independence to all your foreign conquests, relieve Italy from the government of the rabble of Rome, consult it as a nation entitled to self-government, and do its will.' But steeped in corruption, vice and venality, as the whole nation was,... what could even Cicero, Cato, Brutus have done, had it been referred to them to establish a good government for their country?... No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and their people were so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control. Their reformation then was to be taken up ab incunabulis. Their minds were to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments proportioned, indeed, but irremissible; in all cases, to follow truth as the only safe guide, and to eschew error, which bewilders us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government. But this would have been an operation of a generation or two at least, within which period would have succeeded many Neros and Commoduses, who would have quashed the whole process. I confess, then, I can neither see what Cicero, Cato and Brutus, united and uncontrolled could have devised to lead their people into good government, nor how this enigma can be solved." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:233
 
The Federalist Papers No. 51

“ It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.”

“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

“In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the
weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”
 
"I agree with you that it is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities, which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country."
Thomas Jefferson to Hugh P. Taylor, October 4, 1823

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

"our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man's and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friend's or our foe's, are exactly the right."
Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, September 26, 1814

"The press [is] the only tocsin of a nation. [When it] is completely silenced... all means of a general effort [are] taken away."
--Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802. (*) ME 10:341

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."
--Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

"The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."
--Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper."
--Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

"I am... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents."
--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

"The art of printing secures us against the retrogradation of reason and information."
--Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Paganel, 1811. ME 13:37

"The light which has been shed on mankind by the art of printing has eminently changed the condition of the world... And while printing is preserved, it can no more recede than the sun return on his course."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1823. ME 15:465

"The art of printing alone and the vast dissemination of books will maintain the mind where it is and raise the conquering ruffians to the level of the conquered instead of degrading these to that of their conquerors."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1821. ME 15:334

"[The] literati [of Europe are] half a dozen years before us. Books, really good, acquire just reputation in that time, and so become known to us and communicate to us all their advances in knowledge. Is not this delay compensated by our being placed out of the reach of that swarm of nonsensical publications which issues daily from a thousand presses and perishes almost in issuing?"
--Thomas Jefferson to Charles Bellini, 1785. ME 5:153, Papers 8:569

"I cannot live without books."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1815. ME 14:301

"To preserve the freedom of the human mind... and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement."
Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.
 
Benjamin Franklin’s writing (Franklinpapers.org)
“In old Time it was no disrespect for Men and Women to be call’d by their own Names: Adam, was never called Master Adam; we never read of Noah Esquire, Lot Knight and Baronet, nor the Right Honourable Abraham, Viscount Mesopotamia, Baron of Carran; no, no, they were plain Men, honest Country Grasiers, that took Care of their Families and their Flocks. Moses was a great Prophet, and Aaron a Priest of the Lord; but we never read of the Reverend Moses, nor the Right Reverend Father in God, Aaron, by Divine Providence, Lord Arch-Bishop of Israel: Thou never sawest Madam Rebecca in the Bible, my Lady Rachel, nor Mary, tho’ a Princess of the Blood after the Death of Joseph, call’d the Princess Dowager of Nazareth; no, plain Rebecca, Rachel, Mary, or the Widow Mary, or the like: It was no Incivility then to mention their naked Names as they were expressed.”

“Since it is impossible for me to have any positive clear Idea of that which is infinite and incomprehensible, I cannot conceive otherwise, than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no Worship or Praise from us, but that he is even infinitely above it.

But since there is in all Men something like a natural Principle which enclines them to Devotion or the Worship of some unseen Power; And since Men are endued with Reason superior to all other Animals that we are in our World acquainted with; Therefore I think it seems required of me, and my Duty, as a Man, to pay Divine Regards to Something.

I conceive then, that the Infinite has created many Beings or Gods, vastly superior to Man, who can better conceive his Perfections than we, and return him a more rational and glorious Praise. As among Men, the Praise of the Ignorant or of Children, is not regarded by the ingenious Painter or Architect, who is rather honour’d and pleas’d with the Approbation of Wise men and Artists.

It may be that these created Gods, are immortal, or it may be that after many Ages, they are changed, and Others supply their Places.

Next to the Praise due, to his Wisdom, I believe he is pleased and delights in the Happiness of those he has created; and since without Virtue Man can have no Happiness in this World, I firmly believe he delights to see me Virtuous, because he is pleas’d when he sees me Happy.
And since he has created many Things which seem purely design’d for the Delight of Man, I believe he is not offended when he sees his Children solace themselves in any manner of pleasant Exercises and innocent Delights”
 
Franklin Writing
“If the Creature is thus limited in his Actions, being able to do only such Things as God would have him to do, and not being able to refuse doing what God would have done; then he can have no such Thing as Liberty, Free-will or Power to do or refrain an Action.

By Liberty is sometimes understood the Absence of Opposition; and in this Sense, indeed, all our Actions may be said to be the Effects of our Liberty: But it is a Liberty of the same Nature with the Fall of a heavy Body to the Ground; it has Liberty to fall, that is, it meets with nothing to hinder its Fall, but at the same Time it is necessitated to fall, and has no Power or Liberty to remain suspended.”

“But let us take the Argument in another View, and suppose ourselves to be, in the common sense of the Word, Free Agents. As Man is a Part of this great Machine, the Universe, his regular Acting is requisite to the regular moving of the whole. Among the many Things which lie before him to be done, he may, as he is at Liberty and his Choice influenc’d by nothing, (for so it must be, or he is not at Liberty) chuse any one, and refuse the rest. Now there is every Moment something best to be done, which is alone then good, and with respect to which, every Thing else is at that Time evil. In order to know which is best to be done, and which not, it is requisite that we should have at one View all the intricate Consequences of every Action with respect to the general Order and Scheme of the Universe, both present and future; but they are innumerable and incomprehensible by any Thing but Omnis-cience. As we cannot know these, we have but as one Chance to ten thousand, to hit on the right Action; we should then be perpetually blundering about in the Dark, and putting the Scheme in Disorder; for every wrong Action of a Part, is a Defect or Blemish in the Order of the Whole. Is it not necessary then, that our Actions should be over-rul’d and govern’d by an all-wise Providence? How exact and regular is every Thing in the natural World! How wisely in every Part contriv’d! We cannot here find the least Defect! Those who have study’d the mere animal and vegetable Creation, demonstrate that nothing can be more harmonious and beautiful! All the heavenly Bodies, the Stars and Planets, are regulated with the utmost Wisdom! And can we suppose less Care to be taken in the Order of the moral than in the natural System? It is as if an ingenious Artificer, having fram’d a curious Machine or Clock, and put its many intricate Wheels and Powers in such a Dependance on one another, that the whole might move in the most exact Order and Regularity, had nevertheless plac’d in it several other Wheels endu’d with an independent Self-Motion, but ignorant of the general Interest of the Clock; and these would every now and then be moving wrong, disordering the true Movement, and making continual Work for the Mender; which might better be prevented, by depriving them of that Power of Self-Motion, and placing them in a Dependance on the regular Part of the Clock.”
 
I want to point to a Court Case that could be as informative for a Judge (as helpful to a Plaintiff in a Lawsuit or Defendant in a Case) as Marbury V Madison is, but it is much less well known, and involves a broader range of Law being explained
Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 21 L. Ed. 966, 18 Wall. 648, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1341 – CourtListener.com


Gonzales v O Centro Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal: Religious Exemption
US Supreme Court Opinion
Wisconsin v. Yoder - Wikipedia
American Organizations Operating Outside of America are outside of American Jurisdiction:
Daimler AG v. Bauman - Wikipedia
The Paquete (Foreign Subject in American Court):
The Paquete Habana, (full text) :: 175 U.S. 677 (1900) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
The Lola (Foreign Subject in American Court):
THE PAQUETE HABANA | FindLaw
Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen - Wikipedia
Rhetorical: "If New York can subject foreign ships coming into her ports to such obligations as those imposed by her Compensation Statute, other states may do likewise. The necessary consequence would be destruction of the very uniformity in respect to maritime matters which the Constitution was designed to establish"
"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified."
Political Truth:
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus - Wikipedia
"We do not want the government deciding what is political truth – for fear that the government might persecute those who criticize it. Instead, in a democracy, the voters should decide."
Over-reacting to Domestic Controversy:
Bond v. United States (2014) - Wikipedia
"The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemical irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon."


Constitutional Rights and State Court
Oswald v. New York - Wikipedia
Brown v. New Jersey - Wikipedia
"The state has full control over the procedure in its courts, both in civil and criminal cases, subject only to the qualification that such procedure must not work a denial of fundamental rights, or conflict with specific and applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution."
Judiciary Act of 1891: Created Court of Appeals
Judiciary Act of 1891 - Wikipedia
Judicial Code of 1911: Created District Courts
Judicial Code of 1911 - Wikipedia
Jurisdiction
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act - Wikipedia
Alperin v. Vatican Bank - Wikipedia
United States v. Peters (1795) - Wikipedia
International Law:
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino - Wikipedia
Wilson v. Girard - Wikipedia
Respublica v. De Longchamps - Wikipedia
"The person of a public minister is sacred and inviolable. Whoever offers any violence to him, not only affronts the Sovereign he represents, but also hurts the common safety and well being of nations; he is guilty of a crime against the whole world."
Washington DC & Inherited Laws
United States v. Simms - Wikipedia
Government Funding of Chaplains
Marsh v. Chambers - Wikipedia
Prayer in Government
Town of Greece v. Galloway - Wikipedia


Supreme Court Authority over other courts: Martin v Hunter's Lessee
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee - Wikipedia
Supreme Court Authority to Review Constitutional Complaints
NAACP v. Button - Wikipedia
Cohens v. Virginia - Wikipedia
Fletcher v. Peck - Wikipedia
Lau Ow Bew v. United States - Wikipedia
Thompson v. City of Louisville - Wikipedia
Limits on Lower Courts
United States v. Hudson - Wikipedia
Congress must first enact a law criminalizing an activity, attach a penalty, and give the federal courts jurisdiction over the offense in order for the court to render a conviction.
Calder v. Bull - Wikipedia
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, makes it greater than it was, when committed.
3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender."
The Court should not expand its Jurisdiction beyond the Constitution but should interpret it
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia
Stuart v. Laird - Wikipedia
United States v. McBratney - Wikipedia
Pearcy v. Stranahan - Wikipedia
Common Law & the Court
United States v. More - Wikipedia
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins - Wikipedia
Muskrat v. United States - Wikipedia
Procedure to Appeal
United States v. Hooe - Wikipedia
Resler v. Shehee - Wikipedia
Bailiff v. Tipping - Wikipedia


Interpreting Statutes & Acts
Schacht v. United States - Wikipedia
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham - Wikipedia
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette - Wikipedia
Kimbrough v. United States - Wikipedia
Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hillmon - Wikipedia
United States v. Stevens - Wikipedia
Adair v. United States - Wikipedia
Maryland v. West Virginia - Wikipedia
New Mexico v. Texas - Wikipedia
Coyle v. Smith - Wikipedia
Wieman v. Updegraff - Wikipedia
Terminiello v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia
Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co - Wikipedia.
Farrington v. Tokushige - Wikipedia
Fiske v. Kansas - Wikipedia
Harris v. Jones case brief
Letter of the law
Lambert v. California - Wikipedia
United States v. American Trucking Ass'ns - Wikipedia
Chung Fook v. White - Wikipedia
62 Cases of Jam v. United States - Wikipedia
McBoyle v. United States - Wikipedia
Sorrells v. United States - Wikipedia
Edwards v. California - Wikipedia
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States - Wikipedia
'familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.'
Rhetorical: "Shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation? ... There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation."


Establishment Clause
Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich - Wikipedia
Per the Establishment Clause, decisions imposed by hierarchical religious organizations are binding in civil courts.
Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America
KEDROFF et al. v. ST. NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Casetext
Rights of an Association of People:
Dartmouth College v. Woodward - Wikipedia
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County - Wikipedia
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States - Wikipedia
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church - Wikipedia
The Hull resolution determined that civil courts may only regard the issue of property, and not the underlying religious doctrine pertaining to church property where the potential for entanglement of the secular courts and religious bodies may occur.
"In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. *All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to (its) government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for."
Baird v. State Bar of Arizona - Wikipedia
US v Ballard:
UNITED STATES v. BALLARD et al. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Prosecutions of this character easily could degenerate into religious persecution.
Watson v. Jones - Wikipedia
1) courts cannot rule on the truth or falsity of a religious teaching
2) where a previous authority structure existed before the dispute, courts should defer to the decision of that structure, and
3) in the absence of such an internal authority structure, courts should defer to the wishes of a majority of the congregation.
Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia
Lee v. Weisman - Wikipedia
Engel v. Vitale - Wikipedia
Abington School District v. Schempp - Wikipedia
Pierce v. Society of Sisters - Wikipedia
Zorach v. Clauson - Wikipedia

Free Press
Near v. Minnesota - Wikipedia
Saia v. New York - Wikipedia
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo - Wikipedia
Thornhill v. Alabama | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Incorporation of the 1st Amendment
Adamson v. California - Wikipedia
Gitlow v. New York - Wikipedia
Schneider v. New Jersey - Wikipedia
Corporations are people
Grosjean v. American Press Co. - Wikipedia.
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York - Wikipedia
Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council - Wikipedia
Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India - Wikipedia
Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc - Wikipedia.
Kunz v. New York - Wikipedia

Jurisdiction
Religious Rejection of Laws that go against Religious exercise
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
United States v. Seeger - Wikipedia
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Wikipedia
Sicurella v. United States - Wikipedia
Clay v. United States - Wikipedia
Estep v. United States - Wikipedia
Downes v. Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell - Wikipedia
Congress has no existence, and therefore has no authority, outside of the US Constitution.
The 4th Amendment has a further reach than Congress
Torres v. Puerto Rico - Wikipedia

Congress is not Unlimited
Boyd v. United States - Wikipedia
United States v. Davis (2014) - Wikipedia
United States v. Ballin - Wikipedia
Hodges v. United States - Wikipedia
Newberry v. United States - Wikipedia
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota - Wikipedia
United States v. Morrison - Wikipedia
"must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."
United States v. Lee - Wikipedia
"The commissioners, having in the execution of the law acted upon a rule which deprived the owner of the land of an important right, a right which went to the root of the matter, a right which has in no instance known to us or cited by counsel been refused to a tax-payer, the sale made under such circumstances is invalid, as much so as if the tax had been actually paid or tendered."

A Law that seems Neutral but is used discriminatorily, is an unConstitutional Law
Yick Wo v. Hopkins - Wikipedia




Choice of Law Clause: Choosing the Jurisdiction of a Contract
Choice of law clause - Wikipedia
Only Federal Constitutional Rights related Common Law is Constitutional Common Law
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co - Wikipedia.
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States - Wikipedia

Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church: Common Law, Constitutional Law & Other Jurisdictions
Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church, (full text) :: 210 U.S. 296 (1908) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Treaty of Paris (1763) - Wikipedia
Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers - Wikipedia
New Jersey v. New York - Wikipedia
New Jersey v. Delaware - Wikipedia
Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland - Wikipedia
The Privleges and Immunities Clause
Privileges and Immunities Clause - Wikipedia

Common Law applied:
Fellows v. Blacksmith - Wikipedia
Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia
Talton v. Mayes - Wikipedia
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez - Wikipedia
United States v. Quiver - Wikipedia
Williams v. Lee - Wikipedia
Menominee Tribe v. United States - Wikipedia
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker - Wikipedia
Oklahoma Organic Act - Wikipedia
Illegal Arrests for Misdemeanors committed outside of the arresting officer's presence:
Bad Elk v. United States - Wikipedia
 
18 U.S. Code § 247 - Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b) of this section–
(1) intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so; or
(2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person's free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).
(b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) Whoever intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).
(d) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be–
(1) if death results from acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death;
(2) if bodily injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, and the violation is by means of fire or an explosive, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more that 40 years, or both;
(3) if bodily injury to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
(4) in any other case, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
(e) No prosecution of any offense described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States except upon the certification in writing of the Attorney General or his designee that in his judgment a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
(f) As used in this section, the term "religious real property" means any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship.
(g) No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense under this section unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.



42 U.S. Code Chapter 21B: Religious Freedom Restoration
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb - Congressional findings and declaration of purposes
(a) Findings
The Congress finds that–
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are–
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb—1 - Free exercise of religion protected
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.


42 U.S. Code § 2000bb—2 - Definitions
As used in this chapter–
(1) the term "government" includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, or of a covered entity;
(2) the term "covered entity" means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States;
(3) the term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and
(4) the term "exercise of religion" means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc—5 of this title.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb—3: Applicability
(a) In general
This chapter applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after November 16, 1993.
(b) Rule of construction
Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter.
(c) Religious belief unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.
 

DEA Diversion Control Division

www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov

i. To get the Court quickly up to date on Case Law, I cite Olsen V DEA 878 F.2d 1458 279 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 58 USLW 2023 as well as Gonzales v. O Centro Esparita Beneficente Unio do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

ii. Article XVIII, Amendment 64, Section 2 of the Colorado State Constitution, states in the explanation of Definitions "Unless the Context otherwise Requires" in explanation of all definitions, yet the Marijuana Enforcement Agency claims that they only exist to review Applications for Recreational and Medical Marijuana, not "Unless the Context otherwise Requires", see USC Title 42 Chapters 21B and 21C. Amendment 64 can be found in Exhibit S.

iii. Article XVIII, Amendment 64, Section 1 of the Colorado State Constitution, states in the explanation of the law itself, that "Marijuana shall be taxed like Alcohol". The Colorado State Alcohol Code, Article 47, Title 12 CRS, Part I General Provisions, 12-14-106, Exemptions, Section 1, states "The provisions of this Article shall not apply to the sale or Distribution of Sacramental wines sold and used for Religious Purposes", see Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Colorado Alcohol Code can be found in Exhibit S.

iv. For Guidance in this case, I ask the Court to review the DEA RFRA Exemption Process.
DEA Processing Guidelines
RFRA Exemption Guidelines

D. Processing Timeframes
It is important to act expeditiously on applications for Schedule I research. The timeframes for DEA's and FDA's processing of Schedule I research applications are specified in the regulations. DEA forwards complete Schedule I research protocols to the FDA within seven days of receipt; FDA notifies DEA of its determination regarding the merits of the protocol within 30 days; and DEA issues a certificate within 10 days of receiving the FDA's notice. 21 C.F.R. 1301.32(c). It should be noted that although many clinical researchers may be subject to a standardized protocol, thereby streamlining the process, some researchers must also meet institutional and State requirements prior to approval. DEA works closely with researchers to assist with the expeditious completion of their protocol submission and registration application.

v. The 1st amendment was incorporated into the States, and is basically a "person" for legal purposes. So the 1st amendment is a separate plaintiff from myself Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

vi. The DEA is inhibiting Liberty; "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments of this Union rest excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only." Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

vii. I would like to point out that the Law itself actually does provide a route for keeping the Government and Religion unentangled, the DEA just has to follow their own rules. What they are SUPPOSED to be doing right now is not judging if our Religion Conflicts with their Goals, they are simply supposed to be determining if our Religion is (1) Sincere (2) a Religious Belief (3) and is Burdened by the Controlled Substances Act. And if those 3 Conditions are met, they are supposed to grant Exemption.

viii. From there, Petitions can be submitted to solve the Entanglement Problem, as per #6 in the DEA RFRA Guidelines
6. Applicability of DEA Regulations.
A Petitioner whose petition for Religious Exemption from the Controlled Substances Act is granted remains bound by all applicable laws and Controlled Substances Act regulations governing registration, labeling and packaging, quotas, recordkeeping and reporting, security and storage, and periodic inspections, among other things. See 21 C.F.R. Sections 1300-1316. A Petitioner who seeks exemption from applicable CSA regulations (as opposed to the CSA itself) may petition under C.F.R. Section 1307.03. Such petition must separately address each regulation from which the petitioner seeks exemption and provide a statement of the reasons for each exemption sought.

ix. We are growing "Low THC" Marijuana, for THCv content, not for THC content. And I am breeding strains for their THCv Content. Meaning that we are growing "Hemp" and we are making "Industrial Hemp", with High THCv and Low or No THC.
(2) Industrial hemp
The term "industrial hemp" means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

x. 'it is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.' Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

xi. "The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemical irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon." Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)

xii. "We do not want the government deciding what is political truth – for fear that the government might persecute those who criticize it. Instead, in a democracy, the voters should decide." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)

xiii. Sincere Religious Belief; and
All Religions deserve exemptions
(via Wisconsin v. Yoder U.S. 205 (1972))
"Within that phrase would come all sincere religious beliefs which are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent. The test might be stated in these words: a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition. This construction avoids imputing to Congress an intent to classify different religious beliefs, exempting some and excluding others, and is in accord with the well established congressional policy of equal treatment for those whose opposition to service is grounded in their religious tenets."

xiv. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
a) The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
b) The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
c) The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)


II. Claim

One of the most important indicia of 'a religion' is that the particular collection of ideas and/or practices involves belief in the supernatural, that is to say, belief that reality extends beyond that which is capable of perception by the senses. If that be absent, it is unlikely that one has 'a religion'.

(1) Ultimate Ideas: Fundamental Questions about life, purpose and death

(2) Metaphysical Beliefs: Beliefs addressing a reality that transcends the physical and immediate apparent world

(3) Moral and Ethical System: Proscription of a particular manner of acting or a way of life that is moral or ethical

(4) Comprehensive Beliefs: An overarching array of beliefs that coalesce to provide the believer with answers to many of the problems and concerns that confront humans

(5) Accouterments of Religion: The presence of various external signs of Religion

A Church is not much different in Nature from a State, see Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1868). Religion is a form of COMITY INTER GENTES from AFFLATUS. The Separation of Church and State in the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE exists because of the fact that Religion used to be the State, as it is now in Vatican City and the Holy See, Churches may even be a party to CONCORDAT see Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church 210 U.S. 296 (1908); Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111 (1784); Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976); Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969), and allows American's to practice not only one Religion, but any Religion, free from persecution. Not only is there an ANTINOMY between the RELIGIOUS FEEDOM RESTORATION ACT / RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUATIONALIZED PERSONS ACT and the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, there is a CONFLICTUS LEGEM between the Plaintiff's Church and the Federal State arising from the ANTINOMY, which can be resolved by the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE. RELIGIOUS ACCESSION also needs to be considered in the progress of History, Technology and Knowledge. "The term "religious exercise" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief", see 42 U.S. Code § 2000cc—5 (7) (a). "the general characteristics of Schedule I substances cannot carry the day", see Gonzales v. O Centro EspÃrita Beneficente União do Vegetal 546 U.S. 418 (2006); Church of Holy Light of the Queen V. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-35058 (9th Cir. 2014). "Congress must first enact a law criminalizing an activity, attach a penalty, and give the Federal courts Jurisdiction", see Hudson v. United States 522 U.S. 93 (1997). "Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the Free Exercise of Religion", see FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, I AMENDMENT. "If a Government confronts an individual with a choice that pressures the individual to forgo a Religious practice, whether by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit, then the Government has burdened the individuals free Religious Exercise.", see Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398 (1963). "Even neutral laws can be used unconstitutionally", see Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886); 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb (a) (2). "failing to accommodate petitioners' exercise of their "nonmainstream" religions in a variety of ways", see Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005). "conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs", see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. _ (2014).

The Defendants would likely use Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878) in their Defense, but if we are going to go that route, Reynolds would be overturned if it were brought to the court today. Reynolds was decided based on USC Ch126, 12 S 501, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which was, and is well understood to have been, targeting Mormons, and was A POSTERIORI an illegal Act of Congress and is VOID AB INITIO, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). A FORTIORI Using Reynolds as precedent to allow Congress to prohibit Free Exercise is ULTRA VIRES; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. _ (2012). This case is not an argument that the US Government does not have jurisdiction of the Church or its members and is not a statement of ABJURE, it is an argument that Congress has overstepped its role in the Constitution, that Church law is to be considered in these courts, and that arguments from Reynolds should no longer be considered persuasive to US Courts, see Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila 280 U.S. 1 (1929).

Due to the ANTINOMY of the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT and The FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT and the RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT, the ABOLITIO LEGIS of the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT is necessary, it must be ABROGATED as a matter of DE FACTO Right and PENUMBRA.

The Latin phrase SUB ROSA means "under the rose", and is used in English to denote secrecy or confidentiality, similar to the Chatham House Rule. The literal rose and its essence or attar has also played a role in religious and spiritual rites which often would have been held in secret.

Persecution under the modern ULTRA VIRES actions of the US Congress has forced many religions and religious practitioners to operate SUB ROSA or in CLANDESTINE settings AB INVITO, in violation of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE which is AD GRAVE DAMNUM to these Religions, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993). During this time of ULTRA VIRES, CAUSA SINE QUA NON religious practitioners have been CASTIGATED, COERCED and brought to CARCER with no method of ASYLUM established. CESSANTE CAUSA.

During the initial development of the Christian Church under the Roman Empire followers often had to practice in secret. Official policy under Trajan was to provide Christians with the choice between recanting and execution. In 1636, expelled from Massachusetts in the winter, former Puritan leader Roger Williams issued an impassioned plea for freedom of conscience. He wrote, "God requireth not an uniformity of Religion to be inacted and enforced in any civill state; which inforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civill Warre, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisie and destruction of millions of souls." Williams later founded Rhode Island on the principle of religious freedom. He welcomed people of religious belief, even some regarded as dangerously misguided, for nothing could change his view that "forced worship stinks in God's nostrils.".A clandestine church (Dutch: schuilkerk), defined by historian Benjamin J. Kaplan as a "semi-clandestine church", is a house of worship used by religious minorities whose communal worship is tolerated by those of the majority faith on condition that it is discreet and not conducted in public spaces. Schuilkerken are commonly built inside houses or other buildings, and do not show a public façade to the street. "Here, however, defendants challenge plaintiffs' sincerity, citing plaintiffs' decision to conduct ceremonies in secret until the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the UDV plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' secrecy does not show a lack of sincerity. Instead, it shows that plaintiffs remained committed to practicing their religion despite the threat of criminal prosecution and loss of professional status.", see Church of Holy Light of the Queen V. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-35058 (9th Cir. 2014) "Moreover, the latter ordinances' various prohibitions, definitions, and exemptions demonstrate that they were "gerrymandered" with care to proscribe religious killings of animals by Santeria church members but to exclude almost all other animal killings. They also suppress much more religious conduct than is necessary to achieve their stated ends. The legitimate governmental interests in protecting the public health and preventing cruelty to animals could be addressed by restrictions stopping far short of a flat prohibition of all Santeria sacrificial practice...The resulting syncretion, or fusion, is Santeria, "the way of the saints." The Cuban Yoruba express their devotion to spirits, called oris has, through the iconography of Catholic saints, Catholic symbols are often present at Santeria rites, and Santeria devotees attend the Catholic sacraments. 723 F. Supp. 1467, 1469-1470 (SD Fla. 1989); 13 Encyclopedia of Religion 66 (M. Eliade ed. 1987); 1 Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience 183 (C. Lippy & P. Williams eds. 1988)...The sacrifice of animals as part of religious rituals has ancient roots. See generally 12 id., at 554-556. Animal sacrifice is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, see 14 Encyclopaedia Judaica 600, 600-605 (1971), and it played an important role in the practice of Judaism before destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem, see id., at 605-612. In modern Islam, there is an annual sacrifice commemorating Abraham's sacrifice of a ram in the stead of his son. See C. Glasse, Concise Encyclopedia of Islam 178 (1989); 7 Encyclopedia of Religion, supra, at 456...Santeria adherents faced widespread persecution in Cuba, so the religion and its rituals were practiced in secret. The open practice of Santeria and its rites remains infrequent. See 723 F. SUPP.,;lt 1470; 13 Encyclopedia of Religion, supra, at 67; M. Gonzalez-Wippler, Santeria: The Religion 3-4 (1989)...Pichardo indicated that the Church's goal was to bring the practice of the Santeria faith, including its ritual of animal sacrifice, into the open...The court also concluded that an exception to the sacrifice prohibition for religious conduct would "'unduly interfere with fulfillment of the governmental interest'" because any more narrow restrictions-e. g., regulation of disposal of animal carcasses-would be unenforceable as a result of the secret nature of the Santeria religion. Id., at 1486-1487, and nn. 57-59...Although the practice of animal sacrifice may seem abhorrent to some, "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection." Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981). Given the historical association between animal sacrifice and religious worship, see supra, at 524-525, petitioners' assertion that animal sacrifice is an integral part of their religion "cannot be deemed bizarre or incredible." Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U. S. 829, 834, n. 2 (1989).", see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993)

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
- James Madison, 4th president of the United States

OUTLINE OF THE CASE

All I have to do to get the case accepted by the court is prove Prima Facie (Not beyond a reasonable doubt) that my claim is plausible.

So, the first Cause of Action. According to the Supreme Court, Schedule I substances are not enough to bar a substance from Religious Use. The wording they used is that calling a substance Schedule I as an argument against Religious use "can not carry the day".
Gonzales v. O Centro Esp'irita Beneficente Uni~ao do Vegetal, :: 546 U.S. 418 (2006) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

My Religious rights are regularly violated by the DEA. I have been arrested, charged with both a Misdemeanor and a Felony and jailed (and won the case in the end, everything is dismissed), I have been arrested, had items seized and had a Narcotics Investigation opened (and won the case in the end, everything is dismissed). The fact that the DEA does not openly recognize the O Centro case, and make a Public Statement for lower Enforcement bodies, is dereliction of duty.

Laws must be Neutral and can not Overtly or Covertly ban Religions. The DEA allows large corporations to Manufacture, Import and Posses Schedule I and II Substances using DEA form 225, protocol can be found in 21 CFR 1301.18, the Constitution allows the regulation of Commerce, but not the Regulation of Religion. The Controlled Substances Act is not a Neutral Law.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, (full text) :: 508 U.S. 520 (1993) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Noramco DE Inc v. DEA, No. 02-1211 (D.C. Cir. 2004) :: Justia

Second cause of Action, Gerrymandering causing Death. My brother died in 2013 at the age of 11, the final cause of death was Edema (brain swelling). There is solid research (the Doctors even agreed, which is laid out in an Affidavit) that Cannabinoids can reverse Edema. But doctors are either Unable or Unwilling to retrieve Cannabinoids for this purpose due to the current operations of the DEA. The University of Mississippi was a protected Monopoly until August 2016 for Marijuana, at which time the DEA admitted it was allowing this Monopoly and opened up registration to more companies (the DEA admission of this is included in the lawsuit). Mallinckdrot has been allowed to Synthesize Tetrahydrocannabinoids (THC derivatives) but, due to this Gerrymandering, Hospitals do not have access. My brother's Death certificate and Autopsy are included in the lawsuit, as well as the research papers proving he could have been saved. The files showing that they have allowed companies to Manufacture, Import and Posses these Substances is also included, along with case law for what legally defines a Monopoly.
Federal Register

Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States
>Memorandum Of The Antitrust Division Of The United States Department Of Justice As Amicus Curiae In Support Of The Application Of Johnson Matthey, Inc. | ATR | Department of Justice

Third Cause of Action, laws are not Amendments. The 18th Amendment started prohibition, and the Volstead Act was passed by Congress which put it into action. During Prohibition (and in the Volstead Act) Religious use of Alcohol was not Prohibited. If an Amendment did not have the power to violate Religion due to the 1st Amendment, then a mere law can not violate Religion. There is another point made in the third cause of action, but it would take up way more space to explain it here.

Fourth Cause of Action, Rights retained by the People. I am challenging the Controlled Substances Act under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as an Unconstitutional law, the Controlled Substances Act must be overturned. Any judge involved in protecting it is in violation of their oath.
Leary v. United States, :: 395 U.S. 6 (1969) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Marbury v. Madison, (full text) :: 5 U.S. 137 (1803) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Fifth Cause of Action, violation of International Agreements. The United States is a party to various Treaties stating that 1. Religion can not be violated, 2. Religion can not be targeted, and; 3. Religions must be able to manufacture and use Religious items/materials.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations
OHCHR |
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
OHCHR |
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief

In August 2016, the DEA opened up Registration for Federal Marijuana Growers, Importers, and Researchers.
Federal Register

Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States

Catalent has already been approved to Import Tons of Marijuana


Kratom not Scheduled after massive Twitter Response
Federal Register

Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to Temporarily Place Mitragynine and 7-Hydroxymitragynine Into Schedule I

DOJ Anti-Trust Division says that the DEA has to accept new Manufactures and Importers so as not to be creating Monopolies.
>Memorandum Of The Antitrust Division Of The United States Department Of Justice As Amicus Curiae In Support Of The Application Of Johnson Matthey, Inc. | ATR | Department of Justice

United States v. E. C. Knight Co. 156 U.S. 1 (1895)
Counsel contend that this definition, as explained by the derivation of the word, may be applied to all cases in which "one person sells alone the whole of any kind of marketable thing, so that only he can continue to sell it, fixing the price at his own pleasure," whether by virtue of legislative grant or agreement; that the monopolization referred to in the act of Congress is not confined to the common law sense of the term as implying an exclusive control, by authority, of one branch of industry without legal right of any other person to interfere therewith by competition or otherwise, but that it includes engrossing as well, and covers controlling the market by contracts securing the advantage of selling alone or exclusively all or some considerable portion of a particular kind or merchandise or commodity to the detriment of the public, and that such contracts amount to that restraint of trade or commerce declared to be illegal. But the monopoly and restraint denounced by the act are the monopoly and restraint of interstate and international trade or commerce, while the conclusion to be assumed on this record is that the result of the transaction complained of was the creation of a monopoly in the manufacture of a necessary of life.

H.Amdt.332 to H.R.2578 - 114th Congress (2015-2016) | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

You may have heard some crazy quotes about how safe Marijuana is, such as "Aspirin is more dangerous than Marijuana" or "Potatoes are more dangerous than Marijuana" or "It would take 100 tons of Marijuana, smoked in 15 minutes to Overdose" and other crazy quotes. Those actually came from a DEA Judge, Judge Francis, and he backed up everything he said.


III. Events

I Submitted a Request for an Exemption for our Church under the RFRA Guidelines set forth by the DEA on Oct 24th,, 2017, and they are not responding. They also did not respond to the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church until forced to by a Federal Court. I went to the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Agency, having set up a meeting with them on Nov 6th, 2017, and they said "We only do Medical and Recreational" and when told the DEA has a process, they said "We are not the DEA" and kicked me out, without having the agreed upon Religious Meeting. The Marijuana Enforcement Agency is being sued to create a process, Case# 17CV674 in Denver County District Court
But the DEA already has a process and they need to follow it.
I simply want the Court to review this process, and as they were forced to respond to the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church by a Federal Court, I assume that it will have to be done that way again, because I have received no response.
I was also the Defendant in a Religious Marijuana Case in Collin County Texas from 2010, which I won in 2015; and I have filed a Petition with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on Nov 16th; because this is not just happening to the Shaivite Temple, it also happened to the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, so it is becoming a Human Rights issue.
 
Most Lawyers do have an understanding of this, but have not put it together like this yet, I am not sure why, Lawschools should have at least 1 Entire Semester where they go through and show you all the Cases that have been overturned, and how Marijuana was 100% legal Federally between 1969 and 1971.

The word for when Congress oversteps their bounds is:
ULTRA VIRES

Here are some cases where Congress was found to have Overstepped their Role, and went "Beyond the Call of Duty" to get slapped down by the Court.
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. _ (2012).
 
Also, this is not regarding the DEA or IACHR, but the Colorado Lawsuit. Colorado is literally planning on Legalizing Marijuana Clubs, like Bars. But are fighting against Religion, these people are the worst kind of people. It's all about money for them. There is no way they can win this with their mindsets. The only way they can win against me, is if they take the time to look at how they are going to lose.
Marijuana Club License | Colorado General Assembly
 
It has now been 4 weeks (Tomorrow is exactly a Month) since I submitted my Petition to the IACHR.

The DEA Guidelines for normal processing, say that they should have been done in 40-47 days, so I am going to file a Lawsuit next week in Federal Court in Denver.

They did the same thing to the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church in the 80s, but a Federal Court did force them to respond. So the Court will force them to respond.
 

Similar threads

SashaShiva
The Angelicalist Movement and The Van Kush Family
Replies
3
Views
381
CaptainLucky
CaptainLucky
SashaShiva
DEA Administrative Law
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
SashaShiva
SashaShiva
Jim Finnel
'Church of Reality' Can't Use Pot, 9th Circuit Rules
Replies
0
Views
2K
Jim Finnel
Jim Finnel
Jim Finnel
How Alaska Court Dealt With Sincerity Of Religious Belief
Replies
0
Views
2K
Jim Finnel
Jim Finnel
SashaShiva
Religious Marijuana Is Now Legal On The Federal Level
2 3
Replies
56
Views
21K
SashaShiva
SashaShiva
Back
Top Bottom